tv [untitled] March 24, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
there is a possibly illegal call that if you don't pass this emergency housing element, the city will lose some -- the city has always been this is possibly a call in the dark and i would like the council to make note of it. this has to be recalled and a counter explanation sent. on that basis alone, the interpretation is a suggested
guidelines. this is the objective and resources and the political game of the board of supervisors to make those political decisions, not yours. therefore, my suggestion is if you don't want to lose your -- don't call for a suit in court because you definitely will lose them. bank you. >> thank you.
>> i have some written comments to submit. the commission should not certify the eir in this project because it has some very serious legal flaws. i would like to address a few of them that relate to the transportation analysis. first, i am very surprised that the city continues to fail to set forth an accurate baseline. this has been determined by court efforts and yet we keep seeing it here. they are using the 2025 year for this condition.
those have to be based on actual analysis in the year 2008. other things, we cannot find any accurate descriptions of existing traffic volumes even on the selection of study streets which excludes major corridors and streets throughout the city. the city seems to defer to the better neighborhoods. these are better plans. the housing element is the document that should set forth
the policy of the city on residential use, not an area plan. this is not include the intersections, 30 side -- 35 are acceptable levels of service. seeker requires the eir to propose the mitigation. that is not here and this is not in the eir. the 2004 policies that encourages a mode shift towards a transit might result in a potentially significant transit
impact. this means that you have to mitigate it. >> thank you. >> i represent san franciscans for aid livable neighborhood. i am submitting this for the commission to be placed in the record. ihave copies for the commissioners. substantial changes were made after the review. closed. this includes area along bus lines through the city neighborhoods and new policies whereas before policy 12.1 had
to find major transit lines. the plan areas have capacity for your housing needs. also, the text was changed to eliminate the statement in some areas and density limits should be maintained for the character. this was the height and bulk limit. consistency of individual projects would be based on the changed language and the change provides for the districts. it also eliminated it to the planning code to further accommodate housing near transit.
in addition, this is legally an adequate and we should not certify it. there was no density alternative. you have enough capacity in the areas you already approved. it is illegal for you to approve the project. that is limiting to the area's already approved and not expanding the transit oriented development to bustlines outside of the priority development areas which will inquire you to focus on the whole city. residents living near the local bus lines and not near a part
station were deprived of public notice that their areas could be affected by the transit oriented development which includes increased height, density. and thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> i am not sure if i'm speaking to the right item. brought time and time again to your attention which is the adequacy and quality of water supply. there is a development that occurred the day before yesterday at the san francisco public utilities commission.
the assistant general manager reported to the commission that projected shortfall of available water supplies to meet the level of service goals and its contractual obligations. we raised this issue during the scoping. your document relies on the 2005 urban water management plan which was totally out of date ae signed the contract with our customers. after that time, in the summer of 2010, the city agreed to take even less water from our watersheds of 7.4 million gallons a day. because of that, we don't know
right now where we are going to have a supply adequate to meet the contractual obligations of our sales agreement. this documents, they are speak -- this document is speaking to a greater density. the assistant general manager has to come up by april 27th. what is the plan going to be to provide adequate water supply? if you have the person in charge of doing the updating water management plan but in 2010, he
is going to go out and draft the form. you are missing some very important steps. you have let it go until now. it should be until after this document comes out. all of these things are not want to meet our contractual obligations. our contract gives our customers an assured supply. >> thank you. >> certain comments will be
made to decision makers. then it goes on to say, comments on the housing element policy. these are not regarding adequacy of the analysis in the draft eir and no response is required. this might address accuracy issues. these comments have been afforded to the planning department 4 response. with no response is, we cannot write but that this will be certified. these will be published as the last chapter. this seems to be a little bit like the cart before the horse. finally, there are certain changes that were subjective and were not subjected to a formal review. the statement of eliminating changes that were not subjected to environmental review to reinstate the june 2012 draft.
are very concerned and many of these areas are residential areas which could be suddenly subject to increase density through be adding of units. people are willing to spend more to acquire property that is partially income property. we hope you will go back to the earlier versions, thank you. >> we urge you to eliminate the
changes that were not subjected to environmental review and to reinstate the june 2010 draft of the housing element that was subject to environmental review. before the 2005 element is put into its draft, we have the opportunity to sit down to go over the entire document. we reached a compromise and was true our name from the subsequent litigation. this time around, unfortunately not only did we allocate the opportunity but we have bee rebuffed.
council. i have been inundated with people who are unhappy. they don't know why they can keep this designation. it was a very upsetting issue. she they feel that this will destroy the middle class, single-family homes in san francisco. they feel that the price will increase as the individual families will not have to compete with those who want to develop a second unit.
they worry about areas that don't have parking problems. we have the highest conservation in the state. this is 58.5 gallons per day. we feel we will be going to 47 gallons per day. the neighborhoods are losing their rights to self- determination. they worry that these will not be honored. shh planning is going to
community based and this is citywide. this goes to the structure of the homeowners' association. their very existence is being challenged. they are galvanized. this is making about 60,000 units when they were requiring about 30,000 units. first i'm sure we will be in talks over this. this revision is a disaster.